20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the SSA to give good reasons for the weight it assigns a treating source’s medical opinion.

Bianco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

The SSA must “give good reasons” in its decision for the weight it gives a treating source’s medical opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to explain the weight assigned and consider the relevant factors.

Conn v. SSA · filed 2021-03-12(c)(2)

Any post-remand analysis must include a discussion of the Wilson factors if the ALJ determines not to ascribe controlling weight to Dr. Watts’s opinion.

An ALJ need not discuss every factor or separately analyze controlling and noncontrolling weight when the explanation gives good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source opinion.

Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-02(c)

The regulations did not require the ALJ to give a lengthy discussion regarding her reasons, explicitly discuss each factor, or bifurcate her controlling weight and noncontrolling weight analyses, as her discussion was sufficient to explain the reasons she gave Dr. Hermanowski’s opinion “some weight.”

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who denies controlling weight to a treating source opinion to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fletcher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-07(c)(2)

The ALJ ultimately gave Dr. Buccilli’s opinion no weight, and substantial evidence supports this finding as the ALJ weighed the Blakley factors and gave good reason for her determination.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Sandusky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-18(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff filed his DIB application prior to March 27, 2017, the ALJ evaluated the medical opinions pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527. ... The Court concludes that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Sauer’s opinions and gave good reasons for declining to give them controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating source opinion that is consistent with other substantial evidence and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Watkins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-02(c)(2)

In this case, the ALJ's decision denying benefits to Watkins violated the treating physician rule and there was a particular lack of coherence to the evaluation and rejection of Dr. Wallace’s 2014 treating source opinion.

For claims filed on or before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

DANIELLO v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-04-06(c)(2)

For cases filed on or before March 27, 2017, as is the case here, see id. at 10, a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

For disability applications filed on or after March 27, 2017, § 404.1527's treating-source rule requiring significant deference absent good cause was eliminated and the amended rules apply.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31

The Regulations governing the evaluation of medical opinions were amended for disability applications filed on or after March 27, 2017, as this one was. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c; Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 F.4th 1094, 1104 n.4 (11th Cir. 2021). The ALJ now determines the persuasiveness of a medical opinion instead of generally basing its weight on the opinion’s source. Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. Consequently, the “treating source rule,” which mandated that a treating physician’s opinion be given significant deference unless there was good cause for discounting it, has been eliminated.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, for claims filed before March 27, 2017.

Book v. Commissioner · filed 2022-04-25(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the opinion of a treating, acceptable medical source such as Dr. Cote is accorded controlling weight if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” ... Because Book did not file an application for benefits until August 2018, the rule according presumptively controlling weight to an acceptable treating source does not apply. In contrast to the earlier claims where § 404.1527 applied, for claims made on or after March 27, 2017, the ALJ will weigh both treating and non-treating medical evaluations based on how well they are supported by the remainder of the record.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 prioritizes the treatment relationship and requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Bell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-21(c)(2)

In contrast, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527 and 416.927, the regulations that govern for claims filed before March 27, 2017, prioritize the treatment relationship, giving more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion. Indeed, if the ALJ “find[s] that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [Plaintiff’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.”

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, and requires good reasons and relevant factors when it does not.

Skokic v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-27(c)(2)

The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating sources than other sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). A treating source’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Forehand v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 984, 986 (8th Cir. 2004). ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must look to various factors in determining what weight to accord that and any other medical opinion of record, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the source provides support for their findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the source’s findings, and the source’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The Court finds that the ALJ failed to offer “good reasons” for assigning little weight to Dr. Marcu’s opinion. ...

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the regulation gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires consideration of specified treatment and opinion factors.

Spruell v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-06(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as plaintiff’s, “[t]he medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” ... Without discussing any of these factors, the ALJ gave “partial weight” to the opinion of Dr. Bird, while simultaneously giving “great weight” to the opinions of the non-examining State agency medical consultants. ... For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as plaintiff’s, an ALJ’s failure to consider the factors outlined in the regulations “alone constitutes reversible legal error.”

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for discounting it.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)(2)

Because plaintiff filed her application before March 27, 2017, the “treating physician rule” applies to the ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ did not provide good reasons for discounting Dr. Tatineni’s opinions.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it conflicts with other substantial evidence and, when withholding controlling weight, to expressly consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons.

Bruzdoski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-25(c)(2)

As Plaintiff filed her SSI application before March 27, 2017, her application is subject to the “treating physician rule.” ... The treating physician rule dictates that “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... “[I]f the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” ... This analysis mandates that the ALJ “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... “At both steps, the ALJ must ‘give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.’” ... The ALJ failed to explicitly consider the Burgess factors or provide “good reasons” for assigning Dr. Duva’s opinion less weight. ... In light of the above, the ALJ failed to give “good reasons” for his weight assignment, and “a searching review of the record” does not confirm “that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed[.]” Id.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

BARLOW-AHSAN v. SAUL · filed 2023-10-17(c)(2)

Because Ms. Ahsan’s case was filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations in effect at the time required the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to treating physician opinions under certain circumstances. ... Under the old regulations, a treating source’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight when it was supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and was consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Here the ALJ carefully assessed the medical evidence and reasonably explained flaws and inconsistencies in each treatment provider’s opinion. R. 27-29. The ALJ properly relied on the reviewing physician’s opinion, which was consistent with the medical evidence. R. 29. My review of the record convinces me the ALJ’s determination was reasonable and based on substantial evidence. There was no error.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion only when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Gisler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-19(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by another physician, the treating physician’s opinion may only be rejected for “clear and convincing reasons.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. If a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted, it may only be rejected for “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) generally favors treating-source opinions, gives them controlling weight when well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires other opinions to be evaluated under its listed factors.

(SS) Garza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-09(c)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that more weight is generally given to the opinion of treating physicians, which are given controlling weight when well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (noting that the opinions of treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining physicians are entitled to varying weight in residual functional capacity determinations). ... Regardless of source, all medical opinions that are not given controlling weight are evaluated using the following factors: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Given the weight of the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor regarding her shoulder, as well as the application of the treating physician rule to this pre-March 27, 2017 claim, there is an insufficient basis to credit the consultative examining opinions (Drs. Georgis and Van Kirk) over the treating source as to her weight lifting limitations.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

EARLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-09(c)(2)

However, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Hubert v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 746 F. App’x 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Brunson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 704 F. App’x 56, 59–60 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[A]n ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician when it is unsupported and inconsistent with the other evidence in the record.”).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with the other substantial evidence ordinarily receives controlling weight, and an ALJ who discounts it must adequately explain the decision and address contrary evidence.

ALEJANDRO v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-04-18(c)(2)

Because Mr. Alejandro’s case was filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations in effect at the time required the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to treating physician opinions under ordinary circumstances. The new regulations dispense with this preference. Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017) with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (consideration and articulation of medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017). ... Under the applicable rules, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2), when deciding that a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion by considering certain factors such as: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of visits, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the source has supported his or her opinion with medical evidence, whether the opinion is consistent with the medical record and the medical source’s specialization. ... I conclude that the ALJ committed error by discounting Dr. Levinson’s opinion without adequately addressing the contrary evidence in the record.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, length of treatment, examination frequency, and the physician’s specialization.

Godoy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-17(c)(2)

For disability benefit applications filed prior to March, 27, 2017, SSA regulations classify medical opinion sources into three types: (1) treating physicians (who treat a claimant), (2) examining physicians (who examine but do not treat a claimant), and (3) non-examining physicians (who neither treat nor examine a claimant). ... If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider several additional factors in weighting the source’s opinion including the nature of the relationship, length of treatment, frequency of examination, and the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... By not providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject Mr. Almaria and Dr. Meldrum’s opinion, the ALJ erred.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a claim filed before March 27, 2017 to give a treating source’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hensinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-16(c)(2)

Because plaintiff filed this claim before March 27, 2017, the “treating physician” rule applies. ... Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... Based on this record, the ALJ gave good reasons for the weight assigned to the opinions of the treating physicians (Drs. Norton, Hammersley, Wooten and Becker).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Frapolli v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-29(d)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that if “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the Social Security Administration] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Under these regulations, the opinion of a treating physician is “normally entitled to great weight.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2018). “However, the Commissioner may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence,” and the Commissioner “may also assign little weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is either internally inconsistent or conclusory.” Id. The regulations require that the ALJ give good reasons for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation. Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Here, the Court finds the ALJ did provide good reasons for attributing minimal weight to Dr. Brockman’s opinions.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but the opinion is not controlling when it conflicts with other substantial evidence.

GUILLEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-12-30(c)

However, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... The ALJ must ... consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). ... In short, for all these reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s consideration of the opinions of Dr. Obuz and of the state agency medical consultants enjoys substantial support in the record, as does the ALJ’s physical RFC determination.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to expressly and properly consider whether a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight.

DAY v. OMALLEY · filed 2025-02-07(c)(2)

Furthermore, because Dr. Heckman was a treating physician, his opinions would be given controlling weight, if his opinion was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [was] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [Plaintiff’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Faced with this record, in which there is no dispute that Plaintiff has severe mental health impairments and other doctors in the record corroborate Dr. Heckman’s opinions concerning the limitations caused by those impairments, the ALJ failed to apply properly the governing regulations and SSR 96-2p; hence, she failed to appreciate that Dr. Heckman’s opinions might be entitled to controlling weight.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and permits discounting opinions that lack explanation or conflict with the medical evidence.

Ortiz-Arce v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-24(c)(2)–(4)

Under the “treating physician rule,” which has been superseded for later-filed applications, but applies here because Plaintiff’s claim was filed in January 2017, if a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the]record,” it is entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2); Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2011). ... Because the opinions were not adequately explained and were inconsistent with medical evidence demonstrating significant improvement with treatment, the ALJ reasonably discounted the opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the regulatory factors when a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, but a clear rationale need not address each factor individually.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-23(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the SSA regulations provide that, unless the ALJ affords controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ is required to consider and weigh all medical opinions of record, whether those opinions are from acceptable medical sources, other medical sources or non-medical sources, with consideration of the following factors for determining the appropriate weight to afford such opinions: (1) the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence in support of the medical opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (6) other factors brought to the SSA’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Saxon v. Astrue, 781 F. Supp. 2d 92, 103-04 (N.D.N.Y. 2011); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c). The factors to be considered in evaluating opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, except that consideration of the treatment relationship is replaced with consideration of whether the non-treating source examined the plaintiff. White v. Saul, 414 F. Supp. 3d 377, 383 (W.D.N.Y. 2019). So long as the ALJ’s rationale is clear, however, the ALJ need not address each factor individually. See Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013). ... As such, the Court finds that the Appeals Council decision gives good reasons to award less weight to Dr. Kashin’s opinion, as it was not well supported nor consistent with the other evidence in the record.

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulation requires an ALJ to give a treating doctor’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and consistent with the other record evidence.

Ali v. Bisignano · filed 2025-06-27(c)(1)

As an initial matter, because Plaintiff filed his application before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to give controlling weight to the opinion of his treating doctor if it was well supported by medical findings and consistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1); Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence; otherwise, the source's opinion is weighed under the factors in § 404.1527(c).

Feliciana Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-16(c)(2)

In evaluating medical opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017, an opinion from a treating source receives controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a source is not given controlling weight, the following factors are considered in determining what weight to give that source (1) whether the source personally examined the plaintiff; (2) the treatment relationship the source has with the plaintiff; (3) to what extent the source presented “relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings[;]” (4) to what extent this opinion is consistent with the rest of the medical record; (5) whether the impairment at issue relates the source’s area of specialization; and (6) any other fact that tends to support or contradict the medical opinion, whether brought by a party to the ALJ’s attention or considered sua sponte. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The treatment relationship is evaluated based on the length of the relationship, its nature and extent, and the frequency of examinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii).

For a claim initiated before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527’s prior medical-opinion rules apply, and a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when medically supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Holly S. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-10-15(d)(2)

Because this case was initiated prior to March 27, 2017, the old medical rules apply for the ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinion evidence.” Under the old rules, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes between the opinions of three types of physicians: treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. Generally, “a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001). If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Jd.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions by source relationship and to give legally sufficient, evidence-supported reasons for discounting a contradicted treating physician’s opinion.

Bisignano · filed 2026-05-18(c)

Because Dr. McGuire and Dr. White were treating physicians and their medical opinions were contradicted by other medical opinions in the record, the ALJ was required to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting these opinions.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) allows less weight for a treating source’s opinion when substantial evidence in the record contradicts it.

Smith v. Shalala · filed 1994-02-17(d)(2)

In this case, the ALJ did gave proper weight to the opinions of plaintiffs treating source. ... Second, as demonstrated above, there is substantial evidence in the record which contradicts these opinions; namely, the objective clinical ... findings and impressions of Drs. Schwartz-man and Mehta.

A treating source’s opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Mitchell v. Chater · filed 1995-10-31(d)(2)

Under the Secretary’s regulations, which are binding on this court, see Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 568 (2d Cir.1993), a treating source’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527 gives deference to a treating chiropractor’s opinion when it rests on personal observation and the medical opinions of consulting physicians.

Schonewolf v. Callahan · filed 1997-08-22(d)(2)

Where the claimant’s primary treatment is rendered by a chiropractor in consultation with neurologists, orthopedics and physiatrists, the opinions of the chiropractor are entitled to deference if derived from personal observation and the medical opinions of the consultants. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion additional weight based on regulatory factors when the opinion is not well-supported.

Brown v. Apfel · filed 1998-01-14(d)(2)

In cases in which Social Security determines that a treating source opinion is not well-supported, the regulations require the ALJ to accord the physician’s statements some extra weight based upon several factors. ... As it stands, the Commissioner’s final determination is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Treating source medical opinions remain entitled to deference when controverted and must be weighed using the section’s factors.

Vieyra v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-31

Even when controverted, “[treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 and 416.927”...and should ...not necessarily be rejected.

A treating source opinion need not receive controlling weight when it lacks support from medically acceptable clinical or laboratory techniques and conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Baker v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-18(d)(2)

These stated reasons are sufficient to not accord the opinion controlling weight, since they imply both that the opinion’s findings are not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and that they are “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

A treating source’s opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by accepted clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Medina v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-21(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is generally entitled to controlling weight so long as it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir.2003).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when objective medical evidence adequately supports it and it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Retlick v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-26(d)(2)

But the ALJ also failed to comply with the treating source rule in rejecting Dr. Allen’s remaining opinions concerning Plaintiffs nonexertional limitations. Under the treating source rule, the opinion of a “treating source” is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is adequately supported by objective medical evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Santa v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-19(c)(2)

The ALJ did not follow the regulations’ directives of affording the treating sources’ opinions controlling weight and he did not demonstrate that inconsistent evidence was substantial.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s medical opinion when it is well supported by acceptable clinical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Terry v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-07(c)(2)

Because all four of the SSR 96-2p factors were met, it was error for the ALJ not to have given controlling weight to Dr. Brown's opinion.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating provider’s opinions great weight unless good cause for giving them less weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Castro v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)

Because Hassan was a treating provider, the ALJ was required to give his opinions great weight unless good cause existed. Although the ALJ found good cause based on contradictions between Hassan’s opinions and the medical evidence, the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Because the ALJ erred in assigning these opinions less than great weight, the case must be remanded for the Commissioner to assess the weight to be given to Hassan’s opinions.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating source’s opinion to give reasons for the weight assigned.

Ammons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-03-26(d)(2)

Thus, I find first that it was error for the ALJ to discount the RFC opinion of Dr. Forman, a treating source, in favor of the opinion of Dr. Swearingen when both opinions contained a marked limitation on Ammons’s ability to handle work stress and that particular limitation was neither adopted in the RFC nor was an explanation given as to why it was excluded.

Section 404.1527’s controlling-weight rule for treating source opinions does not apply to claims filed after March 27, 2017.

Lisa M. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(d)(2)

As the R&R properly explains, however, for cases filed after March 27, 2017, “a treating source’s medical opinion” is no longer afforded controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require controlling weight for a treating source’s retrospective opinion when the patient history supporting it is undocumented in the record before the court.

Primo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

Dr. Wiedershine’s unelaborated retrospective statement that Plaintiff’s symptoms existed based on “patient history,” without documentation of that history, does not, on the record before the Court, constitute a “well-supported” opinion that the ALJ would be required to accept as controlling.

Section 404.1527 does not require a treating source’s opinion to contain a function-by-function analysis for the opinion to receive weight.

Harper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)

But whether a medical source opinion is broken down into a function-by-function analysis is not one of the factors that the Commissioner considers when deciding the weight given to a treating source opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion less weight when inconsistent treatment compliance contradicts it, if the ALJ gives a good reason for that weight.

Flynn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

Plaintiffs inconsistent compliance with mental health treatment is a “good reason” for the weight assigned to Dr. Luna’s opinion because it tends to contradict the opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) calls for weighing medical opinions rather than diagnostic evidence; an ALJ’s discussion can sufficiently explain the treatment of treating opinions without assigning them a specific weight.

Ramos-Oquendo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

Diagnostic evidence does not receive an assigned weight, only medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s decision does not contain a specific weight assigned to the evidence from the treating sources, but the ALJ summarized, analyzed, and considered those records at Tr. 20-27. Ramos’s argument that the ALJ did not consider this evidence is without merit. The ALJ’s lengthy summary of the treating, examining, and consultative opinions, and the ALJ’s explanations of how these played into the RFC assessment, are sufficient to give the court notice of the treatment given to those medical opinions in the RFC assessment and final non-disability determination.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give treating physicians’ opinions less weight when she gives good reasons, including inconsistency with other medical evidence.

Mastronardi v. Saul · filed 2022-03-28(c)(2)

The ALJ’s opinion clearly shows that she reviewed the medical records from Drs. Bassi and Pfeifer and explained her reasons for providing them little weight, which included their inconsistency with the other medical records. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule by determining that significant weight should be given to Dr. Palmeri’s findings.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating source’s opinion when it conflicts with treatment notes or other substantial evidence.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

The ALJ properly rejected this work-preclusive limitation because it is not found in any of Plaintiff’s treatment notes.

A treating source opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ must give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

In short, the undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Flexman’s other limitations were otherwise unsupported and inconsistent with the record. See id.; see also, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing that a treating source opinion will be given controlling weight if and only if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record”). Hence, ALJ Kenyon properly declined to afford the opinion controlling weight and articulated good reasons for assigning the opinion only little weight.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, considering its support, consistency, and the treating relationship.

Klemons v. Social Security · filed 2022-09-07(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ examined the consistency and the supportability of Dr. Najjar’s opinion, and gave consideration to the duration and nature of his treating relationship with Klemons. The ALJ thus fulfilled his obligation under the treating physician rule to provide reasons for the weight he gave Dr. Najjar’s opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give little weight to a treating physician’s vague opinions that lack support from objective medical evidence.

Jordan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(2)

Here, although Dr. Lopez- Blaza provided brief explanations for her checkbox opinions, her explanations are vague and unsupported by objective medical evidence. Thus, the ALJ’s decision to afford her opinions little weight is not erroneous.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion; failing to explain the rejection of a well-supported opinion may require remand.

Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-09(c)(2)

Given that the failure on the part of an ALJ to fully articulate a rationale for rejecting the well-supported opinion of a treating source often compels a remand, the ALJ’s rejection of this well-founded treating source opinion was error.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating source opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Brown Owusu v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-12(c)(2)

Moreover, if “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” Sections 404.1527 and 416.927 require an ALJ to assign the opinion “controlling weight.”

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, with specified factors guiding the weight otherwise.

Schisler v. Sullivan · filed 1993-08-23(d)(2)

The requirement that such opinions be “well-supported” by clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques to receive “controlling weight” departs from our rule but is not unreasonable. ... Because the regulations are valid, they are binding on the courts.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Windus v. Barnhart · filed 2004-11-15(d)(2)

If the treating source opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence, the ALJ must afford it “controlling weight.”

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not automatically require an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion more weight than a consulting physician's opinion.

Mont v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-04-17(d)(2)

Given the admitted friendship between Smith and Mont, the ALJ need not have accorded Smith's testimony more weight than the report by Dr. Heinze, a consulting physician.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when deciding the weight to give a treating source’s opinion that does not receive controlling weight.

Harnisher v. Apfel · filed 1999-02-03(d)(2)-(5)

Next, after apparently rejecting the opinion of Harnisher’s treating physician, the ALJ committed a second error by failing to analyze the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2—5).

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Galligan v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-28(d)(2)

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, in determining the relative weight of the opinion, the ALJ will consider: the “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship”; the “relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings”; the consistency of the opinion with the whole record; the specialization of the source; and “other factors ... which tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Parish v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-30(d)(2)

Nevertheless, in this case, Dr. Lieberg’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

A treating source’s opinion need only be not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight; the ALJ cannot require affirmative consistency.

Dominguese v. Massanari · filed 2001-10-22(d)(2)

Pursuant to Ruling 96-8p, the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating source’s opinion if it is “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence in the record, ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); the opinion need not, as the ALJ stated, be “consistent” with the record.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Covucci v. Apfel · filed 2002-04-03(d)(2)

Controlling weight, however, is appropriate only if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating source opinion controlling weight if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Lopez-Navarro v. Barnhart · filed 2002-06-11(d)(2)

The “not inconsistent” standard presumes the opinion’s prominence and requires the ALJ to search the record for inconsistent evidence in order to give the treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Cichon v. Barnhart · filed 2002-09-03(d)(2)

Finally, even if the ALJ reasonably believed Dr. Caron’s report was not well supported by clinical techniques or was inconsistent with other substantial evidence, he had the duty to articulate these reasons, which he did not do.

A treating source’s uncontradicted opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment receives controlling weight if the record supports it.

Glaze v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-03(d)(2)

The uncontradicted findings of Drs. Gerich and Romero are crucial, since a treating source’s uncontradicted opinion on the nature and severity of impairments is given controlling weight if well-supported by the record.

A treating doctor’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it conflicts with substantial evidence.

Pope v. Barnhart · filed 2003-02-24(d)(2)

His other opinions need not be given controlling weight because they conflict with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1527(d) allows an ALJ to reject a treating source’s opinion for specific, legitimate reasons, including lack of medical support and reliance on subjective complaints.

Boss v. Barnhart · filed 2003-06-12(d)

As stated previously, the ALJ rejected Dr. White’s opinion for the reasons that it was unsupported by medical testing and appeared to be based on plaintiff’s subjective complaints. These reasons are sufficiently specific and legitimate pursuant to the Commissioner’s regulations.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable medical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Hollenbach v. Barnhart · filed 2003-08-12(d)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is to be given controlling weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical . . . diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). We agree with the ALJ that Dr. Merchant’s opinion was contrary to the medical evidence.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

MacKey v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-27(d)(2)

Where a “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [it is entitled to] controlling weight.” ... Here, the ALJ failed to afford the opinions of plaintiffs treating physicians the proper weight.

A medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Bell v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-20(d)(2)

Furthermore, regardless of whether Dr. McFadden was a treating physician, his opinion was entitled to controlling weight only if it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [was] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case ... record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Section 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion when evaluating a claimant’s limitations.

La Patra v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-08(d)

The ALJ should weigh this treating source opinion in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), and reevaluate plaintiffs non-exertional limitations.

When an ALJ fails to give adequate reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, the opinion must be credited as a matter of law.

Lesmeister v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-01(d)(2)

Where the ALJ fails to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the opinions of a treating physician, as here, the Court must “credit that opinion ‘as a matter of law.’ ”

An ALJ must identify evidence justifying a departure from a treating physician’s opinion about whether an impairment equals a listing.

JANEZICH v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-27(d)(2)

In making the equivalency determination, “an ALJ must not substitute his own judgment for a physician’s opinion without relying on other medical evidence or authority in the record.” ... Second, contrary to Ms. Jane-zich’s assertions, the ALJ did rely on medical evidence in rejecting Dr. Steinwald’s equivalency determination.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion about an impairment’s severity merely because other medical evidence confirms the impairment.

Frank v. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-02(d)(2)

Other medical evidence consistent with the treating source’s opinion on the threshold question of whether plaintiff has a mental impairment consisting of depression (a fact also accepted by the Commissioner) is not determinative. Rather, the critical question is whether other medical evidence is consistent with the opinion that the plaintiffs depression is of such severity as to meet the level established in Listing 12.04.

Section 404.1527(d) gives treating sources’ medical opinions more weight than those of non-treating sources and controlling weight when specified conditions are met.

Hardin v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-27(d)

The medical opinions of “treating sources” are given “more weight” than non-treating sources and are even given “controlling weight” if certain conditions are met.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Anderson v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-01(d)(2)

Moreover, a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight only if it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, and the doctor’s specialization.

Allen v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-22(c)

If a treating source is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is to consider: the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion; whether it is consistent with treatment notes, and the specialization of the doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Fletcher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-03-26(d)(2)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record. ... The evidence, both prior and subsequent to Dr. Smith’s assessment in April 2008, is supportive of the restrictions contained therein. The ALJ committed reversible error by failing to grant controlling weight to Dr. Smith’s opinion.

Generally, opinions from treating sources receive more weight because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s impairments and limitations.

Taylor v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-04(d)(2)

Moreover, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) directs that, generally, more weight should be given to opinions from treating sources, since such professionals are more likely to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s medical impairments and limitations.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Morgan v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-18(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. The medical and other evidence in the record, both that discussed by the ALJ and that she did not discuss, fully supports Dr. Schroeder’s opinion as to the nature and severity of plaintiffs limitations. Had his opinion been afforded the weight to which it plainly was entitled, the Commissioner would have been compelled to find her disabled from her alleged date of onset.

A treating source’s opinion may receive little weight when the treatment records lack objective findings supporting the claimed severity or functional restrictions.

López-González v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-09-19(c)(2)

The record supports the ALJ’s determination that these records lack objective medical findings that established a severe condition that lasted twelve months or evidence of functional restrictions.

A treating source’s opinion may receive little weight when specific, legitimate reasons tied to the record show that its restrictions are inconsistent with the claimant’s later progress.

Colosky v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-19(c)(2)

However, the ALJ found that these restrictions were not consistent with plaintiffs progress thereafter. ... These constitute specific, legitimate reasons tied to the evidence of record for the weight afforded Dr. Young’s restrictions, and they provide no basis for reversing his determination in that regard.

A medical opinion receives more weight when it is consistent with the record as a whole; conflicting treatment notes can diminish the weight of a treating source’s opinion.

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-11(c)(4)

The opinion mainly recounts the history of plaintiffs impairments, but its suggestion of disabling limitations is contrary to the medical record recited above and in the ALJ’s decision, including most particularly Dr. Burrows’s own treatment notes. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rowe v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-12(c)(2)

As is apparent from this rule statement, however, controlling weight is only appropriate when a treating source opinion is “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.”

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source's medical opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Condon v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-18(c)(2)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ gave inadequate weight to the opinions rendered by the treating and examining doctors in this case. ... There is no suggestion that Dr. Graham's opinion is based on anything other than medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques, and the opinion is consistent with all the other evidence in this record.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) makes supportability and consistency part of deciding whether a treating source’s medical opinion receives controlling weight.

Cleinow v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-01(c)(2)

Plaintiff's argument is also contradicted by the text of the regulation, which provides that the Administration will consider the supportability and consistency of a treating physician's medical opinion in the course of determining whether to assign the opinion controlling weight: "[i]f we find that a treating source's medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. " 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (emphases added).

A treating source’s opinion may receive little weight when its stated limitations are inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Goudy v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-26(c)

Thus, considering the record as a whole, the ALJ did not err in giving little weight to the limitations marked on the Questionnaire by Dr. Christopherson.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain a decision not to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight and support it with substantial evidence.

McCallum, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-02(c)

Once a medical source has been identified as a treating source, the regulations require, at a minimum, that the ALJ make some determination ... that a reviewing court could consider as indicia that the ALJ considered the opinions of a claimant’s treating source in accordance with § 404.1527(c), and that any decision not to accord those opinions controlling weight is thoroughly explained and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when the opinion lacks support in treatment notes and conflicts with other record evidence, if the ALJ gives good reasons.

Jensen v. Saul · filed 2019-10-03(c)

The ALJ found that Dr. Udall’s opinions were not supported by his treatment notes and were not consistent with the other evidence in the record. These are good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, allowing the ALJ to give Dr. Udall’s opinions little weight.

A treating source’s opinion generally receives more weight than an examining physician’s opinion, and an ALJ must give a basis for favoring the latter.

Fraga-Jimenez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)

Further, the ALJ gives no basis for crediting the opinion of Dr. Sant, an examining physician, over that of Dr. Knibbe, Petitioner’s treating rheumatologist for five years.